Standing Committee D

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Land Registration Bill [Lords]

New clause 2 - Completion of register

''(1) All unregistered land shall be registered by 30th December 2003. 
 (2) Any person who fails to register land pursuant to this section shall be guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.''. —[Mr. Sanders.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed this day, That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Eric Illsley: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: New clause 3—Registrar to create public record of unregistered titles—
''The registrar shall create a public record of all unregistered titles known to him by 30th December 2003.''.

Adrian Sanders: I was making the point that there should be a comprehensive register of land.
 The book ''Who Owns Scotland'' by Andy Wightman states that 
''the ownership and use of land is one of the most fundamental issues in any society.'' 
Whereas that book did much to place land ownership on the political agenda in Scotland, it is clear that in general, in Britain, land is not a fundamental issue, nor has it been for most of the 20th century. One reason for that is that in the late 19th century, the register of returns of owners of land threatened to highlight the issue of land ownership. Once they were aware of that, the return was buried by the landowners that it had exposed. 
 Admittedly, the landowners were threatened by more than exposure in the return. They were disturbed by land agitation in Ireland. The extent of landlessness among the English population in 1876 was not hugely different from that in Ireland. The potential for a revolution in land ownership in England existed, but it simply never happened.

William Cash: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I mention the fact that my great, great uncle happened to be the secretary of the Tenant Rights Association in the 1840s.

Adrian Sanders: That was a helpful intervention, because I was not aware of that association. I am aware of another organisation that no doubt the hon. Gentleman will intervene and say that another member of his family was a member of.
 The return was pulled back and, in a sense, buried, partly as a result of the events in the Republic of Ireland, where land was being redistributed to the landless peasantry. That redistribution began in the 1880s and finally ended only a few years ago. It proved so effective that, by 1921 and independence, large landowners as a class in most of that country had largely been eliminated. 
 This is where the history links into the Bill. There is reason to believe that that redistribution of land is one of the essential underpinnings of the Irish economic success of the 1990s, when that comparatively tiny state of fewer than 4 million people drove its gross domestic product above that of the United Kingdom. Without a comprehensive land register, we cannot begin to tackle that issue. 
 The Republic of Ireland does not require its citizens to pay a council tax or water rates. It provides a far higher level of old-age benefits than almost any other European state. Despite the huge and very British style of intense urbanisation around the capital, Dublin, the community of the Republic of Ireland remains largely rural, although most farms are now adjusted to the post-European-integration reality of deriving one quarter of their income from subsidy, one quarter from farming and a full half from other activities. What has never been analysed is the ''credit accelerator'' based on land ownership, which has drawn money and investment into the Irish economy, as opposed to the economy created in Ireland by foreign investment. 
 Understanding the way that credit was generated for Irish families through the possession of land on a widely distributed basis is central to understanding why the British economy stalled, not in the last 50 years of the previous century, but possibly as far back as the late 1800s, when economic decline first set in. Another lesson for Britain is hidden in the Irish economy. As real wealth has spread and the value of land and its potential as collateral has risen, so has the pace and nature of housebuilding in the Irish economy.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr Illsley. I am fascinated by this essay on the relationship between the Irish and British economies, and the question of land in Ireland. However, I ask you whether it is entirely in order, given that we are talking about a Land Registration Bill for this country. Whatever Sinn Fein may be up to in attempting to get into this House, I wonder whether this is the right way to go about it.

Eric Illsley: That is a valid point. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has strayed rather wide of the terms of the Bill, which deals with registration rather than ownership, and I hope that in his subsequent remarks he will return to the issue of registration.

Adrian Sanders: Yes, the issue of registration is fundamental if we are to change the way in which our economy has developed over the years. My argument is that we cannot deal with other linked issues without some form of comprehensive land register. In essence, the issue is not legal but economic. We cannot begin to
 deal with, say, the housing crisis unless we first establish a comprehensive land register. In the UK, the importance of home ownership is widely understood, yet the Treasury remains locked into neo-classical industrial economic models that produce not real growth but only a gentle level of decline, along with appalling levels of pay and job security in a so-called service economy. It is from our small neighbour, which is building more than twice as many houses a year per head of population, that we can learn the most crucial lesson about creating a viable economy for our people.
 In essence, a land register would help us to redistribute land more widely and raise money on its value. We could do away with the council tax, improve many available social benefits and find land for the houses that are so desperately needed. Having already gone through that process, the Irish pay no council tax yet still benefit from local services. Surely that could be done in this country, too. Between £12 billion and £17 billion could be raised—more than sufficient to cover the £10.4 billion currently raised by the council tax. A revision of land subsidies should not seriously affect farmers. On the contrary, the system might well be more efficient if it ensured that subsidies were paid to those who could assist agricultural output, rather than to the landed aristocracy. 
 I hope that I have given members of the Committee an inkling of the present situation, which is undesirable and cannot begin to change until there is a comprehensive register of land ownership. As I have said, the implications for generating wealth, housing the homeless and really tackling poverty are so obvious and profound that one might ask why no one has tried it before. The answer is that they have. In 1911, Lloyd George wanted to introduce site value rating, or land value taxation, as others call it. What stopped him was opposition to a comprehensive land register. Other countries—Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Sweden and parts of the United States—have been more successful, and it is time that we followed suit.

Michael Wills: I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for a fascinating and radical insight into the way in which Liberal Democrat policy is evolving. If I understood him correctly, he is calling for the nationalisation of land, widespread redistribution and, as a consequence, the abolition of most other taxes—all of which is to be brought about through completion of the land register. That is remarkable. I look forward to seeing those policies develop, and to combating my Liberal Democrat opponent on their fine detail.
 I do agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points about the importance of registering land. In case there is any doubt, however, I should make it clear for the record that, although registration is valuable, we do not see it as a precursor to the nationalisation of land. We share his views about the importance of completing the register, but I am afraid that we must resist the new clauses. Unregistered land should of 
 course be phased out as soon as possible—indeed, that is the purpose of the Bill. However, to proceed in the way envisaged in the new clauses would be fraught with difficulties. The vast majority of events that result in changes to the legal owner of the land are already caught by the existing trigger mechanisms. As I think I said on Second Reading, it would be hard to devise a system that naturally picked up further registrations, and now is not the time to do so. The Bill as drafted and the way in which it will be implemented will fully match the resources of the Land Registry and its customers for many years to come. We think that they can cope with the current proposals, but they would be hard pressed to deal with much more than that. 
 The issues surrounding completion of the register need to be considered very carefully. Due account must be taken of human rights, which the hon. Member for Torbay seemed to overlook in his survey of future developments. The Law Commission has suggested that that issue be reviewed in about five years' time, when the Bill has bedded in, and in my view that is a sensible course to adopt. Moving towards the goal of total registration is of course important, but we may not need drastic measures of the sort that the hon. Member for Torbay would like to see. If we allow time to discover the Bill's impact on the level of voluntary registrations, such information could help us to design the measures necessary to complete the register. 
 New clause 2 is unnecessary, ill-timed and misconceived. The creation of a record of unregistered interests would not result in a meaningful public register without a corresponding investigation of legal titles to those interests. To be meaningful, such a record must involve the investigation of title process that currently precedes first registration of title. The new clause is untimely, in that we anticipate the Bill's encouraging a far greater level of voluntary registrations. The new clause would also result in much additional work for, and adjustment by, the Land Registry, and occupy those involved in the conveyancing process for some time to come. Regrettably, we must therefore resist it.

Adrian Sanders: I thank the Minister for his comments, but I should place it on the record that I would not advocate the nationalisation of land. Ireland, America, Canada and New Zealand have all achieved a comprehensive register without the nationalisation of land, which never formed part of my proposal.
 I accept that the Minister genuinely wants a comprehensive register. People perhaps do not think enough about this matter and the potential opportunities to which a comprehensive register could give rise. My purpose is to put the issue on the public record, widen people's horizons and open their eyes to what might be achieved in future. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 - Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 49, line 24, leave out 'obvious on' and insert 'disclosed by'.

Eric Illsley: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 49, line 38, leave out 'obvious on' and insert 'disclosed by'.
 No. 39, in page 50, line 3, at end insert— 
 '( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), an easement or profit shall be taken to be such as would be disclosed by a reasonably careful inspection if such an inspection would reveal that acts had been done on the land, or advantages had been enjoyed over it, which were in fact done or enjoyed in the exercise of the easement or profit, whether or not such an inspection would also show whether those acts were done or those advantages were enjoyed as of right and not merely by permission of the owner or occupier of the land.'.

William Cash: The amendment deals with a number of matters relating to unregistered interests that override registered dispositions, specifically with reference to paragraphs 2 and 3. In relation to persons in actual occupation, there is an exception in respect of a number of interests and a question concerning the wording. That is clear from amendment No. 36, which would omit the word ''obvious'' and substitute for it the words ''disclosed by''. It may seem to be no more than a drafting matter, but there is a distinction between what is ''obvious'' on a reasonably careful inspection of land and what is ''disclosed by'' a reasonably careful inspection of land at the time of disposition. The amendment relates not only to paragraph 2(c)(i), but to paragraph 3(1)(b), which refers to easements and profits a prendre and in which the same point arises. I should be interested to know the Minister's response because it is obvious to me that ''obvious'' is not the right word to use.
 Amendment No. 39 covers a more important point and refers to easements and profits a prendre. Paragraph 3(1) relates to leasehold interests in land, but does not apply under paragraph 3(2) 
''if the person entitled to the easement or profit proves that it has been exercised in the period of one year ending with the day of the disposition.'' 
An easement or profit could include rights of way and all sorts of other rights such as shooting rights. A whole raft of matters could conceivably fall into this category, which is very large and of enormous practical importance to landowners. People may buy estates and find that they are subject to rights of way, rights of light, rights of passage and other rights that I mentioned earlier arising under private Acts, such as rights of piscary and so on, on which I received a very helpful letter from the Land Registry. We are suggesting that 
 ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), an easement or profit shall be taken to be such as would be disclosed by a reasonably careful inspection if such an inspection would reveal that acts had been done on the land, or advantages had been enjoyed over it, which were in fact done or enjoyed in the exercise 
of the easement or profit, whether or not such an inspection would also show whether those acts were done or those advantages were enjoyed as of right and not merely by permission of the owner or occupiers of the land.''. 
I could spend a long time on this, Mr. Illsley, but you can be assured that I have not the slightest intention of doing so. The law on the subject is extensive and interesting, and includes matters relating to shooting rights, riparian rights, who owns what up to certain points in a river, and whether it is for navigation or a cut. There are many books on the subject and it would be invidious to go through the whole matter. However, the amendment should be given proper consideration and I have no doubt that the Minister will do so. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Michael Wills: I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). At one level, amendments Nos. 36 and 38 cover drafting matters, but they could have important consequences, which is why I shall resist them. In speaking to those amendments, I shall also speak to amendment No. 39.
 The Government share a common objective with the hon. Gentleman: that the Bill should provide that if a buyer knows of a person's occupation or a legal easement or profit because it is patent, he should be bound by it. The issue is: how can that common objective be best achieved? The hon. Gentleman believes that the words ''disclosed by'' will achieve that objective better than the words ''obvious on''. We disagree, and to explain why I must say a little about the way in which the Bill was drafted. 
 Many areas of the statutes that the Bill replaces have been subject to considerable litigation over many years. When there has been doubt about important provisions and that doubt has been resolved, the answers now form part of the common law. When the answers are clear and satisfactory, the Bill has deliberately been drafted neither to incorporate nor to change the substantive law. That is in the interests of a shorter Bill and avoiding the risk of having been taken to have changed the law. 
 In the Bill as originally drafted, paragraph 2 represented a partial exception to that rule. There are many practical difficulties in establishing the steps that a prospective buyer needs to take to discover whether land is occupied and whether the person occupying it has acquired rights that will override the sale. The first version of the Bill tried to give some additional explanation. During debate in another place, the Government were convinced that that was a mistake and that the words that had been inserted were not self-evidently clear. Although they were not intended to change what had been established by the leading cases on the matter, there was an unacceptable risk that they might have been thought to do so and thereby give rise to avoidable litigation. 
 After careful consideration and hard thinking to see whether the wording could be made more helpfully explanatory, the Government decided that the safest way was to use the shortest wording that was closest to the current statutes, because there would then be less risk of attempts to revisit common law decisions that had been found to be clear and workable.
 I hope that Conservative Members will accept that approach. Their amendments would, arguably, change the existing law and they are no clearer than what they would replace. Little may turn on the two phrases, but I am not aware of any judicial gloss on the word ''discovered'' in this context, while the word ''obvious'' has been the subject of judicial use. 
 In the leading cases of Ashburner v. Sewell and Yandle and Sons v. Sutton, the test applied by the judges was whether a defect in title was obvious to an intending purchaser. We consider that the safest course is to use the word ''obvious'' in the Bill because it is a word that has been considered by the courts in a similar context. As far as I am aware, the phrase ''discovered by'' has not had such judicial consideration.

William Cash: Disclosed by.

Michael Wills: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right.
 The final amendment in this group, amendment No. 39, is unnecessary because, as I have just said, there is already judicial guidance on how to interpret what is obvious on a reasonably careful inspection. The approach to interpretation is the same as for the case law on the question of what does not have to be disclosed to a buyer of land prior to contract. The courts have held that patent defects in title do not have to be disclosed. In the Yandle case, the learned judge said: 
''I think he''— 
the purchaser— 
''is only liable to take property subject to those defects which are patent to the eye, including those defects which are a necessary consequence of something which is patent to the eye.'' 
If a legal easement or profit is one that a seller of the burdened land would have to disclose to a buyer before contract, it will override a registered disposition.

William Cash: I do not know whether the Minister has any interest in land, or in rights of way, but can he tell me how a right of way can be identified by looking at it?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question to which I will return in a short time, if I may. First, I will continue to make the point that I was making.

William Cash: I will offer the Minister another example. How does he know that a shooting right exists unless he sees birds strutting around the land and people popping at them with guns?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman makes that point extremely well. There will be circumstances where rights such as those will be self-evident. It one sees a shooting party—

William Cash: Robert de Niro or someone like that.

Michael Wills: If one sees a shooting party, with everyone banging away at the pheasants as they wing across the land, and the beaters, as I understand it, beating the pheasants out of whatever they are beaten out of—

William Cash: They are beaten to within an inch of their lives.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman is rendering me valuable assistance. I have never fired a shot at anything in my life, and he obviously has much greater knowledge of such things than I do. In those circumstances, I think that it would be a reasonable assumption that those people were occupying the land as a result of some sort of right. I will return to the point about rights of way very shortly.
 A legal easement, such as I was discussing, might occur if at the time of a registered transfer there were a private right of way, the existence of which was patent to the eye. The words ''patent to the eye'' and ''inspection'' cover a multitude of terms here. Someone could be sent to look at the land to see whether paths were clear and maintained. One might see posses of ramblers rambling over it, presumably in pursuit of some existing right of way, or people shooting, as we have already discussed. There are ways in which one might reasonably assume that a right of way existed. If that were patent to the eye, the buyer would be bound by it, even if they did not know details of the particular right under which the way was used, or who the users were. 
 I hope that that addresses, to some extent, the hon. Gentleman's point and that, in the light of that, he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

William Cash: I am not convinced by that argument, and I was getting slightly worried about whether the Minister could read the handwriting on the piece of paper that came across, which was patent, obvious and disclosed. I think that we might need to come back to this issue on Report, so I will give the matter some careful consideration. In the meantime, with the proviso that I intend to consider tabling further amendments on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 - Registration of adverse possessor

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 58, line 14, after ''5'', insert ''(2) and (3)''.
 The amendment seeks to limit the applicable conditions to exclude the conditions set out in paragraph 5(4). I do not know whether all hon. Members have looked at the amendment, but it arises under the general heading of the effects of registration.
 Paragraph 9(3) states that where a squatter—for a moment I thought that I might get a glimmer of interest from the other side of the Committee—is registered as proprietor, he takes the property free from any mortgage that is registered against it. Paragraph 9(4) goes on to specify certain exceptions; in other words, cases where the squatter will take the property subject to any existing mortgage. Such situations could crop up quite easily; a lot of squatting goes on in relation to land, so I hope that we will get a coherent response, of the sort to which we are used, from the Minister. The question is whether a squatter should take subject to a mortgage when paragraph 5(4) applies. 
 One of the requirements is that the squatter reasonably believes that the land is already his. With the greatest respect to squatters, I have to say that they often believe that the land is already theirs, for reasons that, I suspect, have much to do with the arguments that we heard during debates on new clauses 2 and 3. Irrespective of whether or not land is actually owned by someone, a belief is prevalent in certain parts of the world that it should belong to everyone. Squatters fall into that category. They are sometimes driven to illegal occupation of land in circumstances in which many people are sympathetic to their plight. However, I suggest that, in most cases, they have a reckless disregard for the land that they are invading. 
 In this case, a requirement is that the squatter reasonably believes that the land is already his. That requirement exists to cope with genuine boundary confusions. I shall give an illustration of what is likely to happen. It sounds a little like the questions put to me in my Law Society final examinations, so the Committee must forgive me if I read it with some nostalgia. A takes out a mortgage on his house and large garden. Unknown to him, the deeds include, and therefore the mortgage covers, a strip of land at the edge of the garden actually occupied by his neighbour, B. B thinks that that land is his. When he discovers that it is not, he successfully applies the registration of his title acquired by adverse possession. That only confirms the position that has existed for at least 10 years. 
 In such circumstances, why, asks the examiner—and the official Opposition—should B be saddled with a slice of A's mortgage? I see that the student Minister is passing a note to his tutor to ensure that we get the right answer. I do not say that with any disrespect, because I am sure that we need, and will get, the right answer. The amendment would exempt B. Will the Minister please comment?

Michael Wills: The amendment is interesting and relates to situations that could arise frequently. Undoubtedly there will be applications where a squatter has gained title to a large proportion of the estate. Sometimes, the sums of money involved will be large, whether the proportion of the estate is small or large. In such circumstances, were the amendment adopted, former registered owners could find not only that they had lost a proportion—perhaps a valuable one—of their land,
 but that they still remained subject to any charge on the land that had been lost. Additionally, a lender could lose a significant part of its security. It seems to me that that would be an injustice for both the former owner and the lender.
 We face a choice. The Bill as it stands imposes the inconvenience of an additional stage in working out what should happen when a squatter is successful. That often involves comparatively small sums of money, but undoubtedly fairly apportions the remaining financial liabilities and any charge on the land. The amendment would remove that stage for many, but would be unfair for the few cases in which there was a large charge. The existence of the apportionment rule could discourage some from making unmeritorious applications. There is a possible argument—it may not carry much weight with the hon. Member for Stone—that, were the amendment made, it would place the Bill at the risk of being challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998. The general arguments are in favour of the Bill as it stands.

William Cash: The Minister has just walked into some curious territory. Human rights for whom; the squatter or the owner of land?

Michael Wills: That is an interesting philosophical point.

William Cash: It is a legal one.

Michael Wills: It is, and, if the amendment were made, the Bill might fall foul of article 1 of the European convention on human rights as it relates to the Human Rights Act.

William Cash: At the dying stages of the Committee, I do not want to enter into an arid discussion. However, with whom do the legal rights lie? If the rights lay, by adverse possession, with the ownership of the squatter, he would be able to sustain human rights vis-a-vis the owner of the land. That would be a perfect example of the nonsense that is thrown up by some parts of the Bill.

Michael Wills: Quite simply, the human rights would be those of the chargee. The amendment throws up certain problems in that respect. After taking in the other arguments for a balance of fairness, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. I recognise his point, but a balance of fairness must be struck and we think that the Bill strikes it.

William Cash: Would the Minister be good enough to consider my point before the Bill is considered on Report? If he does so, we may be able to come to an agreement over wording; if he does not, we may table an amendment on Report.

Michael Wills: I am always happy to consider anything that the hon. Gentleman says, but can give no guarantee as to the outcome of that consideration. I hope the fact that I will give consideration will enable him to withdraw the amendment.

William Cash: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to. 
 Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 - Indemnities

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 61, line 23, at end insert ', or
 ( ) the exercise by the court of its powers under section 46'.
 The object of the amendment is to ensure that priority is maintained in all but the most extreme circumstances, and that circumstances in which priority is lost be indemnified. Questions of indemnification are important and I would be grateful for the Minister's explanation of why he opposes that; if, indeed, he does.

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that we will oppose the amendment, and I am happy to give him our reasons. The schedule, which refers to clause 102, deals with the question of indemnity, embodies the principles on which the state guarantee of titles is based and gives confidence to the conveyancing process. It is important that the provisions are comprehensive. The structure of the arrangements was reviewed in detail quite recently and amendments were introduced by the Land Registration Act 1997. Those provisions have been in operation for several years and I understand that they are working well.
 Although the Bill is couched in a different style, it does not change the legal position in any material way. Schedule 8(1) lists all the circumstances in which the registrar must indemnify a person for loss; it is a no-fault system. The amendment would add a new circumstance to the list of those in which indemnity will be payable. It seeks to make the registrar liable to compensate a person who suffers loss because the court has exercised its power to enter a restriction and it has chosen to give that restriction priority over existing entries or applications that are protected by the priority searching mechanism. 
 I understand why the amendment has been tabled, but it is not appropriate. In deciding whether an order should be made to enter a restriction, the court will consider the rights and other matters affecting the title, especially if it had signed to give the restriction overriding priority. Under clause 46(5), the court may exercise its power to direct that a restriction is the overriding priority, subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. It is, therefore, appropriate for the courts—not a registry—to consider the issue of compensation to be paid to persons adversely affected by the order. The amendment is unnecessary, because the rights of third parties must be addressed within the court proceedings that give rise to the order.

William Cash: I am intrigued by that answer. The fact that the court may, under clause 46(5), make
 the exercise of its power under subsection (3)—subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit—does not include the power to be able to impose what would effectively be the indemnity that is referred to in the arrangement that we are proposing, which is an entitlement to an indemnity for someone who suffers loss by reason of the exercise by the court of its powers under clause 46.
 I am glad to say that another note is being passed to the Minister, and I hope that it comes to his rescue on this occasion. Where the court finds that it has to make an entry, it does not take that decision for a frivolous reason; it takes it because, having listened to the arguments, it has come to the conclusion that that is necessary. If that is necessary, and loss is incurred by someone under schedule 8(1), and if the power to impose conditions is not enough to provide an indemnity but the court thought that the matter was important enough to do that in any case, why should not the person be able to obtain the indemnity that he would, otherwise, have been able to get? That is illustrated by a glance at the other entitlement provisions, such as a mistake in the cautions register, a mistake whose correction would involve rectification of the register, and a mistake in an official search. My point is that there is a category within which clause 46 falls that is not dissimilar to those that are set out in the indemnity provisions relating to entitlement. 
 I am open to further persuasion, and I suspect that another note is making its way to the Minister that might help me to understand the matter better. However, I will not withdraw the amendment until the Minister has had a chance to read the note in front of him.

Michael Wills: It will not take long to read.
 I am advised, by people who are in a far better position than I am to know the facts of the matter, that the court will require an undertaking in damages from the applicant, and that, if there is a mistake, an indemnity is payable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can add that to the reassurances that I have already given him, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

William Cash: That just goes to prove the beauty of our democratic system. As a result of pursuing the matter a little further as we reach the dying moments of the Committee, the Minister has said something that provides me with enough reassurance to be able to withdraw the amendment, although I had told my troops—or, rather, troop—that we would press the matter to a Division. However, we might return to it on Report, because I shall seek further advice on the question. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to. 
 Schedule 9 agreed to.
 Schedule 10

Miscellaneous and general funds

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 66, line 19, leave out paragraph 3.
 This important provision relates to the manner in which rules will apply with regard to implied covenants. The amendment is probing. Why does the Minister consider the provision to be necessary? We suggest that it should be omitted, with a view to finding the reasons for its inclusion.

Michael Wills: As always, I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's probing. Paragraph 3 of schedule 10 fulfils an important function in the conveyancing process. As the hon. Gentleman said, it relates to implied covenants. An obligation to deduce title to land in accordance with a contract of sale comes to an end on completion of the sale. The establishment that there has been a breach of implied covenants for title is the only way in which a transferee can attempt to remedy defects in title that emerge after completion.
 Rule 77A(2) of the Land Registration Rules 1925 currently provides that a person will not be liable for a breach of most implied covenants in respect of matters set out on the register of title. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to this important point.

William Cash: He is paying great attention, and can hear with both ears.

Michael Wills: I am anxious to reassure the hon. Gentleman about this important point and he will not be reassured if he is not fully engaged.

William Cash: I was seeking advice from the Clerk with respect to the termination of our proceedings, which is coming. I listen with great and avid interest—as ever—to what the Minister is saying.

Michael Wills: That was the only moment during our proceedings when I saw the hon. Gentleman's attention flag for even a second. I thought that I should bring him back to the task that faces us all.
 I mentioned the provision in the Land Registration Rules 1925. The Bill addresses that by inserting a new subsection into section 6 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1994. That insertion does not exactly replicate existing law but the differences are not material. As a consequence, the law is made clearer, more coherent and more accessible. The rule-making powers in schedule 10 are fairly limited in scope but are, nonetheless, important. They are designed purely to ensure that everyone knows when implied covenants have been given in relation to a transaction and whether the statutory form of covenant has been modified in any way.
 There is no intention—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may fear that there is—to tinker with the precise wording of implied covenants that have been developed and refined over the centuries. I hope that that reassurance will enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

William Cash: Having heard the Minister's exposition from beginning to end, I am glad to assure him that I will withdraw the amendment. However, as we are reaching the end of our proceedings, I should tell the Minister that there are further points on which I may correspond with him or table further amendments on Report. However, subject to that, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 10 agreed to. 
 Schedules 11 to 13 agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Michael Wills: It is my happy lot to say thank you, Mr. Illsley, for chairing the Committee. I wish to thank in particular my officials, as well as all other members of staff who have assisted during the Committee's proceedings.
 Mr. Cash: I would like to thank the Minister and all other members of the Committee, as well as you, Mr. Illsley.

Adrian Sanders: May I echo the comments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Stone, and offer my thanks to all concerned with the Committee?
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-one minutes past Three o'clock.